Scientists offer quantum theory of soul's existence

All they are doing is laying a hypothetical groundwork of "quantum physics" in order to prep the Godless for acceptance of the "the 12th Imam, the
Mahdi" who will supposedly

...bring about an eternally bright future for mankind, not by force or waging wars but through thought awakening....

....come to return all children of Adam irrespective of their skin colour to their innate origin....

....come and he will cut through ignorance, superstition, prejudice by opening the gates of science and knowledge. He will establish a world
brimful of prudence and he will prepare the ground for the collective, active and constructive participation of all in the global
management....

This is what these "scientists" are doing, giving a scientific sounding argument for eastern mysticism, enlightenment, the promise that this
knowledge will open eyes to be as "god". Hameroff's numerous quotes on Buddhism and it's vast similarities to their theory just underscores it. As
the President of Iran sits in his parliament designed as a giant pyramid with 33 windows, watching the world suck down this preparatory "groundwork"
in order to bring about the "collective consciousness" and "enlightenment", I'm saddened at how few people can see it.

This will never, ever, ever be allowed to stand by skeptics or mainstream science. No matter how convincing the evidence or how much it makes
sense.

A semi-rational explanation for a common human concept is not what many of these people want after so many have argued so vehemently about how stupid
and childish the very concept is. If you've run into some of them, you know that some of them are every bit as dogmatic as a religious
fundamentalist.

Interesting hypothesis.
So, lets say its correct. hit the nail on the head. What does it mean?

Could we then create some sort of equiptment that would allow for quantum resonance containment and transfer souls from one container to another?
(download your soul so to speak)

Would it be possible to bring back other identities/souls that long since passed on?

Anyhow, its a fascinating subject. I suspect there is more to life than what is known already..which is why religion annoys me, This is the right
step...prove a soul, then once its absolutely proven, measured, etc..and can then be used for whatever purpose, then we can start the next step of
finding its function in the universe (aka, religion).

But ya...this can end up being a very exciting field of research if it bears fruit.

I have long since suspected any advanced species wouldn't be in body or robot form, but rather as nearly atomic information packets due to eons of
streamlining..wouldn't it be interesting to find out that we are actually very ancient beings that chose to sort of tuck ourselves in a new primitive
meat shell in order to feel "young" again (cosmically speaking).

How many times have I pointed to quantum gravity and said, "The answer lies here!"

If you find my post on the Collective Consciousness ("What is Collective Consciousness") you'll see that that's exactly where I pointed. And yes,
collective consciousness is pretty much a network of souls.

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
The simple fact of the matter is this:

This will never, ever, ever be allowed to stand by skeptics or mainstream science. No matter how convincing the evidence or how much it makes
sense.

I disagree.
There is nothing supernatural or spooky about this hypothesis.
Here is the deal. a skeptic doesn't dismiss rain...they are skeptical about it being created from a angry deity sitting in a cloud.
It is the presentation (the religion) of the concept that most scientists/skeptics hammer on.

This is something the religious seem to not understand...hense why they assume atheists have a belief in nothing verses a non belief in something..not
a play on words, but a very different view of the world.

Ryan's comment negates nothing; all life: plant, mineral, organism, has a soul. Rosicrucian and relative texts confirmed this over 100 years ago.

That's true, minerals, plants, organism all have souls this I read also somewhere. However, minerals and plants soul is much lower in the hierarchy
and thus they are fit for consumption as food or items of daily use. Eating animals and above is wrong as their souls are much higher levels nearly
equal to the humans. The article also thus confirms the term 'reincarnation' of the eastern religions. Hinduism and Buddhism adhere to these
principles.

"experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects inside these microtubules" I thought microtubules were found in all cells of
the human body. The sperm cell is pretty much a head with a nucleus, and a long microtubule tail. Plant cells also have microtubules. Does the quantum
theory of conciousness apply to these cells as well or only cells found in the brain? How about the brain of a mouse? It's an interesting hypothesis
but this news article doesn't give much. Peer review study please~"

Ryan is right in my opinion. The Quantum theory must therefore apply to all kinds of life from mice to plants.

He mentions the sperm cell containing microtubules, and it makes sense if you've ever wondered how it would be possible for our children to have a
SOUL of their own when in practice, it's been created by the parents.

Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion or not?

edit on 31-10-2012 by Just Chris because: (no reason given)

Definitely relevant. The animals/microbial life vs. us issue always throws a wrench into eternal soul theories, imo. Without reincarnation including
transitions to/from other lifeforms, it just never seemed fair to be a snail forever, fish, or amoeba forever. Yeah, they wouldn't know what they're
missing, and yes, being a fish may have it's perks, but I doubt most entertained and well-fed humans would want to trade places...

Souls is a very dogmatic term. You should probably say vibrational frequencies, because that's what it is. A soul is a vibrational frequency given
off by energy that is produced by quantum gravity. Every single thing that is made of matter has this kind of frequency due to the fact that since
quantum gravity has bound its energy into a cohesive shape, the vibrational frequency of the various elements will, in tandem, give it a specific set
of qualities.

However, living things are able to enhance themselves in various ways in order to channel or access more energy from other planes. The pineal gland is
our organic remote. But that's a whole other topic.

If it has energy, it has the makings of a soul. Whether or not it is actually a soul depends on how the energy functions.

Ryan is right in my opinion. The Quantum theory must therefore apply to all kinds of life from mice to plants.

Is that supposed to disprove the theory? Of course these creatures have souls. People just think they don't because they couldn't imagine what it's
like to be a mouse and still have a soul. Hmm, I don't know, try being a baby!

Frankly, I've had people insult my intelligence for even considering the idea of the paranormal. Anything paranormal. And more than once.

I'm really confused as to why you're explaining what an Atheist is. Belief in the concept of a soul and so on does not automatically necessitate a
belief in a god, even though many of the Atheists that I run into that mock me for considering the paranormal seem to think that.

Thing is, it seems to be the popular thing amongst skeptics and a lot of outspoken scientists to be actively opposed to even the concept of
considering the idea of the paranormal.

I experienced a lot of vitriol and dogmatism from fundamentalist Christians growing up, I have found a similar mindset amongst some skeptics that I
have come across, and see a similar spirit in some scientists. This is where my skepticism comes from.

"American Dr Stuart Hameroff and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose developed a quantum theory of consciousness asserting that our souls are
contained inside structures called microtubules which live within our brain cells. "

So, since my beautiful wife has brain damage after a car accident, does that mean she has lost part of her soul? Or what about those people who are
still functioning after having one of their hemispheres removed, do they only have half a soul? I think I'll stick with my original concept. The
idea of a soul is wishful thinking by a group of emotionally primitive individuals. Fancy having enough grey matter to become a physisisst but lack
the emotional maturity to be able to accept that living things exist for a while then return to be part of the universal goo.

Ryan is right in my opinion. The Quantum theory must therefore apply to all kinds of life from mice to plants.

Is that supposed to disprove the theory? Of course these creatures have souls. People just think they don't because they couldn't imagine what it's
like to be a mouse and still have a soul. Hmm, I don't know, try being a baby!

What gives you the impression this is trying to disprove the theory. It backs up what the article is claiming....

Frankly, I've had people insult my intelligence for even considering the idea of the paranormal. Anything paranormal. And more than once.

I don't really like the term "paranormal" (even though I do use it as a descriptive term now and then). Simply put, if something exists, it is
normal, just not understood yet. If people insult your intelligence because you consider "paranormal" ideas, you can safely insult back suggesting
they think they know everything.

I'm really confused as to why you're explaining what an Atheist is. Belief in the concept of a soul and so on does not automatically necessitate a
belief in a god, even though many of the Atheists that I run into that mock me for considering the paranormal seem to think that.

Many people (self proclaimed atheists included) have no understanding of what an atheist is. It is as you said, a simple non-belief in one or many
deities. There is no other stance relevant..be it not believing in ghosts, aliens, or that pizza is better with pepperoni.

What a lot of former religious people do is become a sort of anti-pararnormalist and call that atheist...aka, they substitute one system of beliefs
with another..this is not skepticism, this is not science, this is just them being jackasses and using any term they can to pretend they are
clever.
But they aren't a atheist..a atheist would never say matter of factly that there are no god(s), and certainly not there are no souls, ghosts,
etc...
Now, a skeptic (proper) has a predisposition to want proof before -believing- in it, but nothing keeps a skeptic or atheist from pondering and
considering tons of stuff (including deities).

I may simply be overexplaining myself to you, but perhaps more for some others benefits that seem a bit lost.

Thing is, it seems to be the popular thing amongst skeptics and a lot of outspoken scientists to be actively opposed to even the concept of
considering the idea of the paranormal.

I experienced a lot of vitriol and dogmatism from fundamentalist Christians growing up, I have found a similar mindset amongst some skeptics that I
have come across, and see a similar spirit in some scientists. This is where my skepticism comes from.

I am a agnostic-atheist whom is a bit of a spiritualist. I don't know the answers, I do want to find out, and the first people to ignore are people
that say they have the answers with nothing to back their claim up. I have experienced "paranormal" things also, and that made me wonder many
things..and reject a bunch of other things.
Skepticism flows both ways..but its usually a good idea to go with the most plausable until evidence proves or disproves otherwise.

A semi-rational explanation for a common human concept is not what many of these people want after so many have argued so vehemently about how stupid
and childish the very concept is. If you've run into some of them, you know that some of them are every bit as dogmatic as a religious
fundamentalist.

That's very true, lol. I'm sure many would rather cease to exist than be wrong.

I think the question is, would you accept the evidence if it were provided, or would you look for any possible reason - no matter how small - to say,
"This is fake" or "This proves nothing".

Many people say if shown evidence, they would believe in what the person has to say. But when they say, "Show me evidence," they're really saying,
"Give me a brick to scrub my face on and I might consider the validity of your thesis."

In other words, you have to rub their face in two dozen different kinds of proof before they begin to reconsider their stance. Is that who you are?

I think the question is, would you accept the evidence if it were provided, or would you look for any possible reason - no matter how small - to say,
"This is fake" or "This proves nothing".

Many people say if shown evidence, they would believe in what the person has to say. But when they say, "Show me evidence," they're really saying,
"Give me a brick to scrub my face on and I might consider the validity of your thesis."

In other words, you have to rub their face in two dozen different kinds of proof before they begin to reconsider their stance. Is that who you are?

Evidence is evidence. It doesn't paint the full picture, but it brings a closer look at what could be.
Once evidence is tested and retested, then you sort of have to accept it. Gravity doesn't care if you accept its proof or not, it won't let you fly
if you think really hard and try to dismiss the evidence..it simply is.

So, I will accept truth in nature, no matter how strange it is. But, proof requires a lot of evidence and tests..
and right now, we are at the scientific hypothesis stage (took 20k years of civilization to finally get to this point)

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.